I think it makes a difference as you said on what kind of business is denying service. In your example of private businesses I think yes they should be able to deny service for whatever reason. It is their brand after all. But the kicker is you have drawn negative attention to yourself. I see it as no different than a private business observing certain religious holidays and not others.

Now I'll tell you who shouldn't be allowed to do this.. public servants or government officials such as court houses,schools and such. There is an exception though. If said school or say a private practice wants to deny service for what ever reason they have a right to due to them separating themselves from the government. Again they have to deal with the backlash that would cause but I believe it's totally ok. That is freedom no matter how fucked up the view is.

(30-06-2015 11:29 AM)unfogged Wrote: Thanks for the opinions, they've given me more to think about. I do agree that taking your business elsewhere is the best method of ending discriminatory practices whenever that is possible.

I'm still not comfortable that I understand why I consider some things morally acceptable and others not. The level of personal involvement involved is something I'm having a hard time pinning down.

For me, your first paragraph is the end. It doesn't work in all cases (i.e. chikfila), as their will be outliers, but bigotry is most often repelled by a free market.

This is not a clear cut issue. Putting up a sign on a retail store that says "No Coloreds" or "No Gays" or "No Blondes" or "No Left-handers" is clearly discriminatory and a good lawyer would rip them a new asshole.

The issue, as you mention in the OP is what about those who provide personal services such as a masseuse, a singer, a photographer etc. Would a court of law rule against one of these professions for saying no to a KKK rally? How about an architect who is also a PETA member who declined to design an abattoir? Another architect who is also a Fundie who declines to provide their services to a gay customer?

This law is clear that in the US we cannot discriminate based on gender, race or religion. Is sexual orientation included?

More questions than answers I'm afraid.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

The following 3 users Like Full Circle's post:3 users Like Full Circle's postBanjo (30-06-2015), unfogged (01-07-2015), morondog (03-07-2015)

I think non-discrimination should be limited to employment, housing, and equal protection under the law. If business wants to discriminate, I like the idea I've heard going around of requiring the discriminating party to disclose up front that this is their policy. So a bakery for instance that opens its doors to the public would have to post that they discriminate against gay people. The public should have a right to know whether a business they frequent discriminates.

(30-06-2015 08:36 PM)BryanS Wrote: I think non-discrimination should be limited to employment, housing, and equal protection under the law. If business wants to discriminate, I like the idea I've heard going around of requiring the discriminating party to disclose up front that this is their policy. So a bakery for instance that opens its doors to the public would have to post that they discriminate against gay people. The public should have a right to know whether a business they frequent discriminates.

We sort of had this conversation already and decided it was in the best interest of society that public businesses not be allowed to discriminate.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(30-06-2015 08:36 PM)BryanS Wrote: I think non-discrimination should be limited to employment, housing, and equal protection under the law. If business wants to discriminate, I like the idea I've heard going around of requiring the discriminating party to disclose up front that this is their policy. So a bakery for instance that opens its doors to the public would have to post that they discriminate against gay people. The public should have a right to know whether a business they frequent discriminates.

We sort of had this conversation already and decided it was in the best interest of society that public businesses not be allowed to discriminate.

I think when it becomes impossible for a minority to conduct commerce at all--because discrimination is so pervasive as to make commerce difficult or even impossible--that in those circumstances a more intrusive government response is necessary. Is that kind of response needed today? I don't think so. I just want to know which businesses want to discriminate so I can avoid them.

We sort of had this conversation already and decided it was in the best interest of society that public businesses not be allowed to discriminate.

I think when it becomes impossible for a minority to conduct commerce at all--because discrimination is so pervasive as to make commerce difficult or even impossible--that in those circumstances a more intrusive government response is necessary. Is that kind of response needed today? I don't think so. I just want to know which businesses want to discriminate so I can avoid them.

I disagree the lesser of the two evils is clearly that if you own a business you cannot discriminate based on protected classes.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

No go ahead and let them discriminate as most people will go somewhere else. It will start to slowly fade out if they aren't getting enough business and will eventually go out of business. May take a while but it'll happen